Topic: Thanks USA! - page 2. (Read 4528 times)

That's why there are petitions to secede circulating in most if not all states with some garnering significant support and 50 million people aren't rioting and looting because they get free cell phones and food with the swipe of an EBT card right?

Thanks firefop, I realize half the energy supplied domestically is from coal-fired generation.  I was trying to make a point with my question that clean, green, renewable energy and roads filled with over-priced electric and fuel cell vehicles is absolutely not in the cards from what I can gather.

Here's a list of examples why the utopian green clean-energy future for the U.S. is a propagandized pipe dream after throwing tens of billions in stimulus and tax credits at now struggling or bankrupt energy companies, some due in whole or in part to domestic regulation and trade tariffs imposed by their own government themselves.  Ridiculous really.  

Will there be a flood by any chance?

The State of the union is strong and will continue to strengthen.

Coal. Interestingly enough, I don't think anyone in power is going to attempt to make the US into a net energy producer... and coal is one of obama's targets. Don't worry over the next 4 years you'll see a real economic collapse in this county.

Will Energy Returned On Energy Invested have more baring on energy policy going forward or less I wonder?  The fundamentals seem inescapable but that never stopped the net-loss-energy source called Ethanol...

Conventional nukes, yes. They have all kinds of problems, not least of which is "NIMBY." People don't want 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl happening in their town. (I guess they ignore Centralia) LFTR fixes or bypasses most of the issues with conventional nuke power stations. Can't have a melt down if your fuel is already melted.

Electric might surprise you how fast it catches up. Within Obama's presidency, probably not. But not long after, I think. Hydrogen, I think you're right, is a decade or two off. The fuel infrastructure just isn't there. But with cheap electric, you could make fueling stations that crack water right there at the pump. It wouldn't take long at all to get those installed all over the country.

Not entirely, no. Each of the subsystems have been tested, but the government cut funding before a full reactor was ever built. You can't use it to make a bomb, you see.

How is that electricity generated though, the stuff that isn't imported?  Solyndra was sure a grand slam eh?  I don't believe there's many new nuke plants being built in the States is there, I know of two?  

I submit that electric powered vehicles, let alone hydrogen powered vehicles, will not be mainstream for decades if at all.  Chevy Volt failed so spectacularly they stopped making them.  One can buy two nice compact cars for what a Nissan Leaf costs, ditto for a Mitsubishi Miev.   Or is Obama and JP Morgan going to give them away like cell phones and food stamps?  When was the last time you saw a hydrogen fuel cell-powered car driving around?  Just the infrastructure alone to service these vehicles on a national basis will take who knows how many years to build out.  Talk about limited in scope.

Oh and I agree LFTR sounds amazing and safe too but it's still just conceptual isn't it?

Further to MoonShadows great points, here's some analysis of the issue of america's energy self-sufficiency and the IEA's projections.  Lauren Lyster isn't hard to take either.

Also very limited in scope. "Energy" is not always contained in barrels of crude. A good chunk of the US's energy needs is electric, and with the trend towards plug-in and hydrogen cars, that chunk will probably get larger as time goes by. LFTR is a great way to make electric.

LOL!  While that goal actually shouldn't be a very hard target to hit, the mere luck of being in office when domestic oil production experiences a resurgence isn't likely to come close to that goal.  And the reports that fraking can make the US energy independent, before or after 2025, is silly cheerleading.  All the assumptions are to the unrealisticly-favorable end of the spectrum, including growth patterns in domestic demand itself.

Also, this new tech doesn't actually grant us more oil than we had, it just means that more of it is extractable.  That does not mean that all that is extractable is economicly viable, much less a net-positive energy gain.  Much like how corn based ethanol takes about as much energy to create as is extractable, there is a point at which it becomes counterproductive energy-wise to continue to extract more oil from the ground & refine it to a point that it's usable in current engine technology.  There is no doubt that more oil is extractable with fraking, but not all of that is of a quality to make that worthwhile.  The Tar sands oil is one example, it's of a particularly low quality that requires much more effort in refinement than what is commonly available from OPEC.

Furthermore, the ills that way upon the current economy have little to do with the availablity of energy, and much to do with the final stages of faulty economic theories used at national levels.  Europe will break apart again, and the cost of oil isn't going to matter a great deal on that front.  When this happens, the US will also be stressed to great levels.  The global economy is far to intergrated these days in order for the US to 'decouple' from Europe in the way that we did following WWII.  This one's going to hurt no matter what the price of oil is.

The U.S. energy self sufficient?

Prediction:  When hell freezes over.

People think the Alberta Tar Sands in environmentally egregious, wait until you see the States producing over 20 million barrels a day that it currently uses.

So what if the U.S. surpasses Saudi Arabia's production by 2020, where is the other 8 or 10 million barrels a day going to come from?

The whole notion is asinine.

Then again, if they can take over enough oil producing nations like Iraq, maybe it's realistic.  My comments above are exclusive of imperialist occupations and military/corporate control of other sources outside the borders.

And the DOE is starting to look into LFTR technology a little more seriously, too. All in all, energy woes are most likely soon to pass.

I have read an interesting analysis (commercial) on obama, energy and economics (I can share this with you but its a commercial letter that was intended to make people sign up for commercial analytics).
Bottom line was, obama is in the right place at the right time which will most probably make him to the most popular president of the united states in history.

He came when the country was struggeling from war and economics, he will be still there when better times arrive, and heres why:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12/u-s-to-overtake-saudi-arabia-s-oil-production-by-2020-iea-says.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-31/u-s-natural-gas-export-permits-delayed-until-late-summer.html

As i understood, the reason for the new oil discoveries is the technique called fracking "Hydraulic Fracturing", directly adapted from natural gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

The united states of america are on the way to become energy resilant, this means jobs, cash and a lot of power.
Of course short sighted its all fucked up, but still, the USA and europe are the most technical advanced poulations, its just nutz to question this.

So imagine, now jobs come back, a lot people get back to work and energy costs a fraction of what it costs now, for me this is a bullish economy factor, and bullish for obama.
Its not just the energy sector that will profit, its infrastrucute, manufacturing and retail too, people can spent more when energy is less expensive, companies can invest.

Additionally, the clean energy plans http://magazine.mining.com/issues/1011/Vol03-07-LithiumbatteriesCleanEnergyPlan-34-35.pdf

Of course this is just speculation, somewhat, but kind obviously that energy plays a role.

+1

we are going to end up like Greece.

Nail. Head.

Somebody get the man a cigar.

The point is that the rest of the world thinks our politics are so hilariously terrible that they find it shocking we are able to be rational about anything (I myself am shocked).

Actually, you have one more "country" with an impressive nuclear arsenal and some of the preeminent religious freaks on the planet to worry about, Israel.  

Nuclear enrichment is as much a distraction and propagandized justification to focus aggression on Iran as the infamous and non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" were in Iraq.  This is about protecting the petrodollar standard, as it was in Iraq, Libya, etc.  

You do know that Al Qaeda is a Western creation of the Soviet/Afghan war and is currently being heavily funded through the C.1.A with a little side of Pakistani ISI and Mossad, right?  Before you call BS do a little research because arms of .gov have come right out and admitted it now.    

Do you guys actually think that the people of the U.S. actually elected Obama?  Actually believe that this two party illusion of choice is at all relevant?  Paul or Johnson didn't have a chance of being president if they lived to be a million.  Politics truly is just show business for ugly people...

A fraction of the populace even votes.  Not to mention the fact that the "votes" were processed  by SCYTL in Spain, who recently bought Tampa-based SOE, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.  Then again, what does law really mean anymore?  None other than George Soros (one of Obama's biggest financial supporters) and Goldman Sachs have admitted to having significant interest in this corporation.  Ever heard about Diebold and numerous rigged state elections?

Obama was awarded a second term months ago, at least as far back as his discussions with Medvedev over the missile defense system in Europe.  The election was mere theatre for the muppets.  

The U.S. is heading headlong into neo-marxist, statist control.  Hell, they've been discussing confiscation... I mean nationalization of the social security/pension system for a while now.  Obamacare, corporate/financial bailouts in the tens of trillions as debt placed on the backs of your children, taxpayer funded terrorist black ops as justification to "spread democracy" (read protect petrodollar hegemony), etc., etc., etc... Most in North America have no idea of how screwed they're getting or of the matrix of lies and fraud that define their ways of life.

See this is why certain types of candidates aren't able to get any respect. It isn't about issues, it's about marketing. I'm willing to say with certainty that Ron Paul has an overseas marketing budget of zero dollars.
Maybe if the poll had mentioned his desire to end foreign aid/wars immediately on the poll...

I somehow doubt Dr. Paul's "bring everybody back" stance would have been as unpopular as Romney's "let's bomb 'em more."

Sad to say - probably about 1% just like they did here.

Obama's administration
1) drone strikes the hell out of our alleged ally, Pakistan, killing/wounding numerous women and children, denies anyone but male combatants are hit. Pakistanis (at least one presidential candidate on down) discuss options which include scrambling air force jets to shoot down U.S. drones
2) trafficks rifles to violent Mexican drug cartels, which are used to kill/wound numerous women and children. Mexico not notified in advance, so they could immediately apprehend the possessors, instead forced to pick up the rifles at crime scenes and at cartel raids

These are the hallmarks of a war criminal, not a humanitarian, or a benevolent ruler of the world.

He should be in the dock at the Hague, along with GWB and all other living presidents.

I don't know Gary Johnson, but Ron Paul was pretty cool. He would have been easily higher than Romney, that's for sure.